| ▲ | Storment33 8 hours ago |
| > Huh? Who cares if the script is .sh, .bash, Makefile, Justfile, .py, .js or even .php? Me, typically I have found it to be a sign of over-engineering and found no benefits over just using shell script/task runner, as all it should be is plumbing that should be simple enough that a task runner can handle it. > If it works it works, as long as you can run it locally, it'll be good enough, Maybe when it is your own personal project "If it works it works" is fine. But when you come to corporate environment there starts to be issues of readability, maintainability, proprietary tooling, additional dependencies etc I have found when people start to over-engineer and use programming languages(like Python). E.g. > never_inline 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [–] > Build a CLI in python or whatever which does the same thing as CI, every CI stage should just call its subcommands. However, > and sometimes it's an even better idea to keep it in the same language the rest of the project is I'll agree. Depending on the project's language etc other options might make sense. But personally so far everytime I have come across something not using a task runner it has just been the wrong decision. |
|
| ▲ | embedding-shape 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > But personally so far everytime I have come across something not using a task runner it has just been the wrong decision. Yeah, tends to happen a lot when you hold strong opinions with strong conviction :) Not that it's wrong or anything, but it's highly subjective in the end. Typically I see larger issues being created from "under-engineering" and just rushing with the first idea people can think of when they implement things, rather than "over-engineering" causing similarly sized future issues. But then I also know everyone's history is vastly different, my views are surely shaped by the specific issues I've witnessed (and sometimes contributed to :| ), than anything else. |
| |
| ▲ | Storment33 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Yeah, tends to happen a lot when you hold strong opinions with strong conviction :) Not that it's wrong or anything, but it's highly subjective in the end. Strong opinions, loosely held :) > Typically I see larger issues being created from "under-engineering" and just rushing with the first idea people can think of when they implement things, rather than "over-engineering" Funnily enough running with the first idea I think is creating a lot of the "over-engineering" I am seeing. Not stopping to consider other simpler solutions or even if the problem needs/is worth solving in the first place. > Yeah, tends to happen a lot when you hold strong opinions with strong conviction :) Not that it's wrong or anything, but it's highly subjective in the end. I quickly asked Claude to convert one of my open source repos using Make/Nix/Shell -> Python/Nix to see how it would look. It is actually one of the better Python as a task runners I have seen. * https://github.com/DeveloperC286/clean_git_history/pull/431 While the Python version is not as bad as I have seen previously, I am still struggling to see why you'd want it over Make/Shell. It introduces more dependencies(Python which I solved via Nix) but others haven't solved this problem and the Python script has dependencies(such as Click for the CLI). It is less maintainable as it is more code, roughly x3 the amount of the Makefile. To me the Python code is more verbose and not as simple compared to the Makefile's target so it is less readable as well. | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It introduces more dependencies(Python which I solved via Nix) but others haven't solved this problem and the Python script has dependencies(such as Click for the CLI). UV scripts are great for this type of workflow There are even scripts which will install uv in the same file effectively making it just equivalent to ./run-file.py and it would handle all the dependency management the python version management and everything included and would work everywhere https://paulw.tokyo/standalone-python-script-with-uv/ Personally I end up just downloading uv and so not using the uv download script from this but if I am using something like github action which are more (ephemeral?) I'd just do this. Something like this can start out simple and can scale much more than the limitations of bash which can be abundant at times That being said, I still make some shell scripts because executing other applications is first class support in bash but not so much in python but after discovering this I might create some new scripts with python with automated uv because I end up installing uv on many devices anyway (because uv's really good for python) I am interested in bun-shell as well but that feels way too much bloated and even not used by many so less (AI assistance at times?) and I haven't understood bun shell at the same time too and so bash is superior to it usually | | |
| ▲ | Storment33 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > UV scripts are great for this type of workflow So previously when I have seen Python used as a task runner I think they used UV to call it. Although I don't think they had as a complete solution as your here auto-installing UV etc. Although the example you've linked is installing UV if missing, the version is not pinned, I also don't think it is handling missing Python which is not pinned even if installed locally. So you could get different versions on CI vs locally. While yes you are removing some of the dependencies problems created via using Python over Make/Shell I don't think this completely solves it. > Something like this can start out simple and can scale much more than the limitations of bash which can be abundant at times I personally haven't witnessed anytime I would consider the scales to have tipped in favour of Python and I would be concerned if they ever do, as really the task runner etc should be plumbing, so it should be simple. > That being said, I still make some shell scripts because executing other applications is first class support in bash but not so much in python but after discovering this I might create some new scripts with python with automated uv because I end up installing uv on many devices anyway (because uv's really good for python) Using Python/UV to do anything more complex than my example PR above? | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think UV scripts can/will actually install python and manage it itself as well and you can actually pin a specific version of python itself via Uv scripts I copied this from their website (https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/scripts/#declaring-script-d...) uv also respects Python version requirements:
example.py # /// script
# requires-python = ">=3.12"
# dependencies = []
# /// # Use some syntax added in Python 3.12
type Point = tuple[float, float]
print(Point) > Using Python/UV to do anything more complex than my example PR above? I can agree that this might be complex but that complexity has a trade off and of course nothing is shoe fits all but there are times when someone has to manage a complex CI environment and I looked at and there are some CI deterministic options too like invoke etc. and when you combine all of these, I feel like the workflow can definitely be interesting to say the least Once again, I don't know what really ends up in github actions since I have never really used it properly, I am basing its critiques based on what I've read and what solutions (python came quite frequently) and something recently which I discovered (which was the blog) |
| |
| ▲ | quotemstr 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This thing does a global uv install when run? That's obnoxious! Never running stuff from whoever wrote this. Oh, and later the author suggests the script modify itself after running. What the fuck. Absolutely unacceptable way to deploy software. | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Does it really matter if its a global install of uv or not especially on Github Actions Also if this still bothers you, nothing stops you from removing the first x lines of code and having it in another .py file if this feels obnoxious to you > Oh, and later the author suggests the script modify itself after running. What the fuck. Absolutely unacceptable way to deploy software. Regarding author suggest its removes itself its because it does still feel clutterish but there is virtually 0 overhead in using/having it still be if you are already using uv or want to use uv Oh also, (I am not the Author) but I have played extensively with UV and I feel like the script can definitely be changed to install it locally rather than globally. They themselves mention it as #overkill on their website but even then it is better than whatever github action is | | |
| ▲ | quotemstr 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm a huge believer in the rule that everything GH actions does should be a script you can also run locally. | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes I believe the same too and I think we are on the same goal. I think that I can probably patch this code to install uv, let's say locally instead of globally if that's a major concern. I feel like its not that hard. | | |
| ▲ | quotemstr 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's easy enough to patch. It's the philosophy that bugs me. We already have a huge problem with routine workflows pulling things from the network (often, without even a semblance of hash-locking) and foregoing the traditional separation between environment setup and business logic. There's a lot of value into having discrete steps for downloading/installing stuff and doing development, because then you can pay special attention to the former, look for anything odd, read release notes, and so on. Between explicit, human-solicited upgrades, dev workflows should be using, ideally, vendored dependencies, or, if not that, then at least stuff that's hash-verified end-to-end. Someday, someone is going to have a really big disaster that comes out of casual getting unauthenticated stuff from somebody else's computer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | pjc50 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Using shell becomes deeply miserable as soon as you encounter its kryptonite, the space character. Especially but not limited to filenames. |
|
| ▲ | catlifeonmars 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I find that shell scripting has a sharp cliff. I agree with the sentiment that most things are over engineered. However it’s really easy to go from a simple shell script running a few commands to something significantly more complex just to do something seemingly simple, like parse a semantic version, make an api call and check the status code etc, etc. The other problem with shell scripting on things like GHA is that it’s really easy to introduce security vulnerabilities by e.g forgetting to quote your variables and letting an uncontrolled input through. There’s no middle ground between bash and python and a lot of functionality lives in that space. |
| |
| ▲ | Storment33 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > However it’s really easy to go from a simple shell script running a few commands to something significantly more complex just to do something seemingly simple, like parse a semantic version, make an api call and check the status code etc, etc. Maybe I keep making the wrong assumption that everyone is using the same tools the same way and thats why my opinions seem very strong. But I wouldn't even think of trying to "parse a semantic version" in shell, I am treating the shell scripts and task runners as plumbing, I would be handing that of a dedicated tool to action. |
|
|
| ▲ | jcon321 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| yea imagine having to maintain a python dependency (which undergoes security constraints) all because some junior cant read/write bash... and then that junior telling you you're the problem lmao |
